cycling links

Fat Lad

Right on the front page you have "You can save your life and prevent
crippling bike injuries if you wear a helmet when you ride."

_________

Perhaps it should be "You can save your pride and prevent crippling embarrassment by wearing clean underwear"

Jason H. (650) 592-1990

David Hansen wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 15:17:54 +0000 someone who may be David Martin
> <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote this:-
>
>
>>Well, if you apply Thompson and Rivera's analytical method to the data they
>>gathered for their infamous paper on cycle helmet efficacy, you discover
>>that helmets will prevent 80% of leg injuries as well as 80% of head
>>injuries.
>
>
> I thought their "method" clearly shows that cycle helmets prevent
> even more knee injuries than head injuries.
>
>
Thank you kindly sir for your traumatic head injury information.

--

Jason H. (650) 592-1990
http://thesame.net/DUNGEONS_AND_BICYCLES/
"If you have any questions about DUNGEONS_AND_BICYCLES--
even if you're just thinking about it -
I can get your questions answered."

Joe Keenan

"Dan" <webmaster@cycling-links.com> wrote in message news:<_z7md.46311$T02.37952@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
> Hello-
> I am a recreational rider and racer, and I am putting together a site with
> biking links.
> If you know of a site to be included, let me know.
> Any comments on design appreciated.
> Thanks-
>
> http://www.cycling-links.com/



Check with Mike: http://www.mikebentley.com/bike/index.html

Slow Joe Recumbo

Ken_in_Michgan

Somehow we got into the helmet thing again. On a 'bent I honestly
don't feel there is the same need for a helmet as on a DF, but since
there are times when we have to ride along the streets that large
metal objects (read cars and trucks) also use and when one of them hit
my wife on her bike she was not wearing a helmet. She suffered from
double vision for six months, even though the old woman that hit her
was only moving about 15 miles at the time. After that we always ride
with helmets. We bought better helmets with large air holes and they
are even cool in on humid summer days.

Wear the helmet and protect the skull, where your brain is, your brain
is the key to everything else you do, or ride unprotected and take
your chances. For us we will be happier with our skulls protected. A
broken leg can heal, there are replacement knees, but they have yet to
come up with a replacement brain and we plan to keep ours!

Ken the Troll

Just zis Guy, you know?

On 26 Nov 2004 18:39:20 -0800, kenkolk@triton.net (Ken_in_Michgan)
wrote in message <853c5c20.0411261839.75e58045@posting.google.com>:

>Wear the helmet and protect the skull, where your brain is, your brain
>is the key to everything else you do, or ride unprotected and take
>your chances.

But there is no credible evidence to support the idea that helmets
prevent serious head and brain injuries. These types of injuries are
in any case usually caused by types of forces that helmets cannot
mitigate, according to current thinking.

What helmets are good at is preventing scalp lacerations, bruises and
the like. For the rest the evidence suggests that they cause, through
risk compensation or whatever, as many injuries as they prevent.

Oh, one further thought: a helmet has substantially less foam in it
than your computer came packed in. If you ran into your computer,
packed in its box, with a car, would you expect the computer to escape
unscathed? Think about the relative strength of polystyrene in
compression and in brittle failure: take a ceiling tile and squash it,
then bend it. Does it break when you bend it? Of course it does. A
lot of helmets fail in crashes, because when the forces exceed certain
limits they go into brittle failure and snap, absorbing virtually no
energy. To depend on a helmet to save you serious injury would be
very foolish indeed.

Wear one or not, but don't expect it to save you more than a slight
headache. I find it helps to think of the hat as being made of
meringue covered in eggshell.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Eric®

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> What helmets are good at is preventing scalp lacerations, bruises and
> the like. For the rest the evidence suggests that they cause, through
> risk compensation or whatever, as many injuries as they prevent.
>
> Oh, one further thought: a helmet has substantially less foam in it
> than your computer came packed in. If you ran into your computer,
> packed in its box, with a car, would you expect the computer to escape
> unscathed?
[snip]

Good point. Helmets are subjected to a 'drop test' in a laboratory. I
have yet to hear of any cyclist who has managed to fall and land
completely upside down on the top of his/her head.

Eric Schild

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 12:02:15 GMT, Eric® <eric@hardknocks.edu> wrote in
message <MPG.1c121ab9c3b7678989895@news.telus.net>:

>Helmets are subjected to a 'drop test' in a laboratory. I
>have yet to hear of any cyclist who has managed to fall and land
>completely upside down on the top of his/her head.

Just so :-)

They also fail the test if they break. Why do so many people think a
broken helmet Saved My Life[tm]?

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Robert Haston

My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how
incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle. Think
about it. Drivers want to believe cyclists are 6 times safer with helmets
because the "fix" becomes changing the behavior of those being hit, not the
drivers who hit them. You change your head gear so I won't have to change
my driving. You've probably read the local paper when a non-helmeted
cyclist is splattered, and they all but declare he was a suicide mission as
he left the house unhelmeted.

I look at it this way: What is a helmet? A Styrofoam hat. This 2-3 cm of
foam crushing is the last item in a long chain of much more powerful
opportunities to avoid injury. Why should we expect a little Styrofoam to
rise above the noise (such as different habits of helmet wearers vs.
non-wearers) and prove itself?

To me the biggest risk in cycling is people who think all they need to do
regarding bicycle safety is to put on a helmet. I used to ride more
aggressively until I read that the great myth of "6 times more likely to
avoid head injury" was based on a single college study which lumped eyebrow
scrapes with comas. Now I ride more conservatively but religiously wear my
helmet - mainly to make a better legal case if I get hit. Thanks to helmet
myths, people think you are insane to ride a bike without a helmet.

Consider that 90% of bike fatalities are actually car fatalities, since the
car does the killing, and that most are from multiple trauma.

I do know that most solo bike fatalities are "end-overs" and head trauma,
which is impossible on most recumbents. I also have much better forward and
rearward vision, with my head up and my mirror in the same plane of view.

I bet more kids have been killed because of well-meaning but misguided
parents filling kids heads "power helmet" myths (just like the characters
they watch on TV or in video games) than have been saved by wearing helmets.
We used to teach them bicycle safety, now "bicycle safety" programs are
often just people handing out bicycle helmets. That's the real problem to
me.

As to the helmet itself, I'll leave all the impact versus rotational, more
helmets = less cycling = less injuries, and other arguments to those who
love them so much.


"Eric®" <eric@hardknocks.edu> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c121ab9c3b7678989895@news.telus.net...
> Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
>
>> What helmets are good at is preventing scalp lacerations, bruises and
>> the like. For the rest the evidence suggests that they cause, through
>> risk compensation or whatever, as many injuries as they prevent.
>>
>> Oh, one further thought: a helmet has substantially less foam in it
>> than your computer came packed in. If you ran into your computer,
>> packed in its box, with a car, would you expect the computer to escape
>> unscathed?
> [snip]
>
> Good point. Helmets are subjected to a 'drop test' in a laboratory. I
> have yet to hear of any cyclist who has managed to fall and land
> completely upside down on the top of his/her head.
>
> Eric Schild

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:00 GMT, "Robert Haston"
<rehaston@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<E81qd.1408$6K5.768@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:

>My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how
>incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle.

Check.

>This 2-3 cm of
>foam crushing is the last item in a long chain of much more powerful
>opportunities to avoid injury.

Check

>To me the biggest risk in cycling is people who think all they need to do
>regarding bicycle safety is to put on a helmet.

Check

>Consider that 90% of bike fatalities are actually car fatalities, since the
>car does the killing, and that most are from multiple trauma.

Check

>We used to teach them bicycle safety, now "bicycle safety" programs are
>often just people handing out bicycle helmets. That's the real problem to
>me.

Check

I agree 100% with every word you say, Robert. An AOL post, I know,
but you said it so well I just had to say "amen to that". Especially
the last point: the arrogation of the cycle safety agenda by helmet
monomaniacs flies in the face of every analysis I have ever seen of
the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions, all of
which, to my knowledge, put helmets last.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Robert Haston

Thanks,

Monomaniacs? I just learned a really useful word. There are plenty of them
out there, such as those guys who could blame anything on Bill Clinton (or
the Clintonistas) or turn any discussion into one about gun control or
abortion in three sentences.

I occasionally catch myself waxing monomaniacal about auto subsidies. But
in my defense, the issue's ratio of real life impact versus public
discussion is probably 100 times higher. For example, what would our
cities look like if "free" busing wasn't included with public education? A
kids first lesson now is transportation is "free" and means motor vehicles.
Instead the lesson for half the kids could be ride your bike to school and
earn a few bucks a day in allowance. Talk about a gigantic boost for
bicycling!

See, I stopped, so my Monomania is under control.


"Just zis Guy, you know?" <uce@ftc.gov> wrote in message
news:4c8hq0de4dq8t8822sfsh3ktiri805sts0@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 15:35:00 GMT, "Robert Haston"
> <rehaston@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> <E81qd.1408$6K5.768@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:
>
>>My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how
>>incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle.
>
> Check.
>
>>This 2-3 cm of
>>foam crushing is the last item in a long chain of much more powerful
>>opportunities to avoid injury.
>
> Check
>
>>To me the biggest risk in cycling is people who think all they need to do
>>regarding bicycle safety is to put on a helmet.
>
> Check
>
>>Consider that 90% of bike fatalities are actually car fatalities, since
>>the
>>car does the killing, and that most are from multiple trauma.
>
> Check
>
>>We used to teach them bicycle safety, now "bicycle safety" programs are
>>often just people handing out bicycle helmets. That's the real problem to
>>me.
>
> Check
>
> I agree 100% with every word you say, Robert. An AOL post, I know,
> but you said it so well I just had to say "amen to that". Especially
> the last point: the arrogation of the cycle safety agenda by helmet
> monomaniacs flies in the face of every analysis I have ever seen of
> the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions, all of
> which, to my knowledge, put helmets last.
>
> Guy
> --
> May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
>
> 88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Tony Raven

Chris Phillipo wrote:
>
> Of course then the argument could be that full face helmets should be
> required, but that will never happen because we do not have a public
> dental insurance plan I broke a tooth skiing and that cost me a lot
> more than a helmet to get fixed. I got a concussion biking but I was
> wearing a helmet so it's ok right? lol

There is evidence that with a full face helmet you will save your teeth
at the expense of your neck. I know which I'd rather have broken.

Tony

Just zis Guy, you know?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 16:18:31 GMT, "Robert Haston"
<rehaston@earthlink.net> wrote in message
<rN1qd.1636$6K5.655@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>:

>Monomaniacs? I just learned a really useful word.

Learning things in a helmet thread? Now there's a thing :-)

I am a reluctant monomaniac myself. People keep trying to force me to
do something I sometimes do voluntarily, on the basis that my chosen
mode of transport looks terribly dangerous to them, although for some
reason this seems to translate into a longer lifespan for those who do
it. The problem, of course, is the population failing to conform to
what is "obviously" true. Naughty population! Bad population!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

DiscoDuck

"Robert Haston" <rehaston@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<E81qd.1408$6K5.768@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> My real belief is the near mythical belief in bike helmets stems from how
> incredibly convenient this belief is for drivers who don't cycle....

One of the most reasonable and honest posts I have read here in years.
Well done.
One observation though. This hysteria has extended to cyclists as
well. I've been called "crazy" for "risking" riding bareheaded BY
cyclists. I think the reason for this, is that THEY (cyclists who
agree with the law) feel silly wearing a helmet, therefore want to
ensure every one "feels" as silly. I'm not saying they are, or look
silly. Indeed some helmets are quite cool looking. But their
resistance is based on ego - not reasoning or intelligence.

Ken_in_Michgan

> I agree 100% with every word you say, Robert. An AOL post, I know,
> but you said it so well I just had to say "amen to that". Especially
> the last point: the arrogation of the cycle safety agenda by helmet
> monomaniacs flies in the face of every analysis I have ever seen of
> the relative merits of different cycle safety interventions, all of
> which, to my knowledge, put helmets last.
>
I agree that too many bike safety classes are ran by people who simply
hand out cheap helmets to the kids and tell them to watch out for
cars. In the school system that I recently retired from we had the
Michigan State Police (the local Post is in our town) come in and
teach a comprehensive program. They did not pass our cheap helmets,
but they did give out coupons for helmet discounts at our local
Meijer's stores.

I am aware that wearing a helmet when riding a 'bent is not as
critical as when riding the old fashioned DF "safety bikes," but when
you consider that we often share the road with some heavy metal (cars,
SUVs, and trucks) driven by people who are ofted distracted by
cell-phones, kids in the car, or - my favorite terror - reading while
driving, we should wear anything that can make us a little safer.

A few years ago my wife was hit while crossing at a cross walk on her
bike by an 85 year-old woman who pulled out of a parking space and hit
her at about 15 mph. Judy's head hit the car's hood and she suffered
from double vision for over six months. That would not have happened
if she had been wearing her helmet.

EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT ALL THAT EFFECTIVE, A HELMET IS STILL BETTER THAN
A BARE HEAD! You can get a replacement knee and broken bones do heal,
but you cannot get a replacement brain or skull. We recently bought
better helmets with larger vent holes that were not even hot on very
humid days this summer. WE PREFER TO WEAR OUR HELMETS AND HAVE THE
LITTLE EDGE THAT THEY GIVE US OVER BEING BARE HEADED. Everyone should
be free to decide to wear one or not to for themselves. I DON'T
BELIEVE THAT THE STATE SHOULD PASS HELMET LAWS FOR CYCLISTS (EVEN
THOSE THAT RIDE HARLEY DAVISONS). We should keep the state our of our
lives as much as possible.

Ken the Troll